User talk:Tumbleman

Previous talk archived

I've archived the rest of the talk section here if anyone needs to access previous discussions. As my account has come under question and I take this matter very seriously, I am leaving the timely and current issue to the top as that is all that is relevant at this time. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

additional archive is at User talk:Tumbleman/Archive

Talk page access

I am not sure whether I could possibly have made it any clearer that you were on the verge of having talk page access removed. However, not only have you continued to make posts here which come rather close to the borderline, but you have yet again pinged IRWolfie, which you cannot possibly have failed to realise would be provocative. As you had been told would be the case, your talk page access has therefore been removed for the duration of this block. As for your claims that you are prevented from taking part in the discussion on possible arbitration enforcement, that is complete nonsense, since you were invited to submit comments here, accompanied by a request to copy them to that discussion, and you have chosen not to take up that offer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement

Tumbleman, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as the consensus of the discussion regarding your edits was that your involvement here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Zad68 13:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Tumbleman, I apologize for the above message, it was incorrect. The block is not an Arbitration Enforcement action. This block has been placed by myself as a "conventional" block from an individual admin, based on the discussion here. The updated block message is below.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing as your involvement here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Zad68 18:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's Response to being banned

Tumbleman has posted a statement regarding his indefinite ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Weiler (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's Talk Page: The Sheldrake Neutral Zone -Please be polite and also don't remove other's comments.-

Tumbleman's page is a good place for everyone to talk about Tumbleman's being banned. I have a blog post on this if anyone is interested: Wikipedia: The Trial of Tumbleman

At issue is a larger problem within Wikipedia. It's fairly obvious that it is easy for experienced editors working together to game the system and it appears to some of us that this seems to be leading to ideologues capturing whole sections of the encyclopedia and slanting them according to their beliefs.Craig Weiler (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)